A Response to the Letter Read in Wards Last Sunday

We’d like to welcome guest author Christian Harrison who shared the following exchange with the Daily Universe (BYU’s campus paper). Christian Harrison is an out gay man and Elders Quorum teacher in Salt Lake City, where he’s a communications professional. He has fond memories of his years at BYU, where he studied International Relations, French, Mandarin, and Danish. He’s posted at Wheat and Tares previously, on the issue of excommunication.

In promoting a story in the Daily Universe about the letter, the Daily Universe posed a question:

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
We did. I was bracing for the worst, but our bishop simply read the letter and invited people with questions to speak with him privately. He prefaced the letter reading with an acknowledgement that there was a divided opinion in the ward on the issue and pointed ward members to the Church’s official site:

While I was thankful that I ducked the bullet of a painful conversation, I must admit that I think painful conversations may be just what is needed. The policy in the letter is wrong and the sooner we shake it off, the better: for the kingdom, for our wards, and for the innocents cowering in the closets — deathly afraid of what God has wrought.

THE DAILY UNIVERSE
Why is the policy in the letter wrong?

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
It’s based on the incorrect traditions of our fathers. It makes no sense in light of reality: that orientation isn’t chosen. If it’s not chosen, then there is no use in punishing someone for being gay. If we actually believe that families are truly the university of the Lord and believe that this life is a time set aside to acquire spiritual wealth, then there is NO reason to ask our LGBT brothers and sisters to sit out of the greatest spiritual endeavor of this life: marriage and family life.

LOGAN H
Gays can and do get married and sealed in the temple, just to a spouse of the opposite sex. No one has denied them the blessings of marriage and family life.

Just because a tradition is old doesn’t mean it is wrong. God has spoken through His mouthpiece, the Prophet, and the Prophet sent this letter, containing the will of the Lord, to the body of the Church.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Gays can and do get married and sealed in the temple — into marriages that farandway end in divorce and heartache (or worse). Would you want your son or daughter to marry a gay man or woman? Or a man or woman who believed that they were actually born into a body of the opposite sex? Are you really willing to sacrifice the long-term happiness of your child, their spouse, and their children for a teeny, tiny rhetorical victory?

And you’re correct: the age of a tradition doesn’t directly correlate to its correctness. Of course, that’s not what I said or even implied. What I said was that THIS tradition — the notion that marriage must be strictly heterosexual — is a human invention. I’m actually a HUGE fan of marriage… and its evolution. I loved it, for example, when we stopped buying our wives and selling our daughters.

Finally: simply opening their mouths — or firing up their word processors — does not mean that what comes out is the word of God. That’s ludicrous. The history of God’s kingdom is littered with the mistakes of His prophets. And that’s okay. I don’t sustain the Prophet because he’s a magical tea leaf reader with a perfect track record — I sustain the Prophet because he was chosen by God to lead the Church. Just like I sustain my stake president because he was chosen by God and not for his business acumen, or GQ hair, or beautiful wife, or well-behaved children… and my bishop… and the relief society president… and the lowly ward bulletinist.

We sustain because we love and that love comes without conditions.

LOGAN H
What I’m hearing is that if the Church leaders say something that is against your beliefs, then they obviously weren’t inspired to say it.

Prayer, not opinion, is how we learn what is true and what is not. I bear witness that the Lord’s prophet speaks His will on this issue. I have prayed about it and I know that the Prophet was inspired to say what he has said.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
And I prayed about it, and know that they were not.

Of course, there were plenty who prayed about blacks never receiving the priesthood … or polygamy never being taken from the earth … or, or, or.

I think I’ll stick with the answers I got to my prayers. Especially when the answers I got reaffirm a just and loving God — and not a capricious God that once thought that gays were worthy of execution and now believes that gays only need to be denied the blessing of family life. Because gays need to be punished, apparently. Because … gays.

LOGAN H
Those things did change, but it is wrong to say the brethren were wrong when the were simply waiting on the word of the Lord. One of the apostles, in the mid 70’s, was saying that blacks should have the priesthood and that certain of the other Brethren were wrong for opposing it. He later formally apologized for speaking against the Brethren. He admitted to being in the wrong.

While giving blacks the priesthood was a good thing, the important thing is to live according to the law as it has been revealed so far. We will be judged today for following the law as it stands today, not for following how we think the law should be tomorrow (or even how it very well may be tomorrow).

PETER O
Christian, you labor under the fallacy that God would make people that by their own nature or genetics deny the most fundamental reality of natural law. That of gender and procreation. God created this law and is not going to ‘walk it back’ because some wish to succumb to unnatural temptation.

You can argue about scripture and interpretations and prophecy all you like in the spiritual realm, but denying reality when it stares you in the face is like staring at the sun and insisting it is dark.

TAMI M
Do you believe in the plan of salvation? The whole purpose for man to come to earth is marry and then multiply and replenish the earth. It IS the plan. Only the union of a man and a woman can create children. The church is basically just stating the plan of salvation.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Peter, you’re apparently not all that versed in either nature or nature’s laws… children are born EVERY day who lack the tools needed to procreate. Moreover, children are born every day whose genitalia point to either multiple sexes or no sex at all (you mistakenly call “sex”, “gender”). It happens, it’s rare, and it’s okay.

But let me be blunt: children are born into families that will TORTURE them, into bodies that will only know pain, into minds that will never comprehend love. Of the hundreds of millions of ways for children to be born into conditions that don’t meet our notions of health or normalcy, you seem to fixate on one specific condition and say — with all the hubris of a “normal” person — that this ONE condition is beyond the pale?!

And the sick irony — the depravity of your assertion — is that this one condition (being born LGBT) is the minor offense of loving someone differently.

God is love. Love is not a defect.

DAVID C
Why then, did God create people who by nature are incompatible with that plan of procreation?

You don’t know the entire plan, and neither do I. There are gay people – that’s a fact. Currently, we don’t know about the part of the plan where they fit in. I believe the Brethren are working to figure this out, and sure – this is the current church policy – but don’t step farther than church leaders and assume that our current understanding of the plan of salvation is complete.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Logan: blind obedience is the doctrine of Satan. God asks us to sustain — which is a higher law. I sustain the Brethren. I also think they’re dead wrong on this. Sustaining and disagreement aren’t mutually exclusive.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
David, Tami: it’s not the plan of procreation. There are millions of people who do not now nor will they ever procreate. If you’ve ever been in sacrament meeting on Mother’s Day, you know this.

It’s the plan of salvation — the great plan happiness. And love is at the center of both.

LOGAN H
Who said anything about blind obedience? But it is still better to obey, for whatever reason, than to disobey. The prophet has told us what is true. It is our duty, then, to find the will to follow the truth. The Prophet can never lead the Church astray. If you side with the prophet, you are never wrong.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
And we’re not just speaking of the love of a parent for a child or a woman for her neighbor… we’re also speaking of romantic love!

At a BYU fireside in November of 1963, Elder Boyd K Packer said: “Romantic love is not only part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it”.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Logan: you ask, without irony: “Who said anything about blind obedience?” and then say “it is still better to obey, for whatever reason, than to disobey. The prophet has told us what is true. It is our duty, then, to find the will to follow the truth. The Prophet can never lead the Church astray. If you side with the prophet, you are never wrong”.

My mind boggles.

If I sided with the prophet when he said blacks would never have the priesthood, that man would never visit the moon, that polygamy would never leave the earth, that Nauvoo was the promised land, then I would have been wrong every time. Every time. There’s nothing magical about being a prophet. Being a prophet is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

And the same prophet who said “the Prophet will never lead the Church astray” was at that moment lying about polygamy and actively thwarting federal law.

I don’t begrudge our leaders for being human. Why do you? Why do you insist that they can’t be wrong? Will you abandon them when they are? Or will you engage in mind-blowing acrobatics to say that right was wrong and wrong was right — just so you can sleep soundly at night believing the false doctrine of infallibility?

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
There is a blessing in following the Prophet. There is. But sometimes the blessing of following the prophet doesn’t out shine the blessing of not walking off a cliff. That’s why we have the Spirit. That’s why we have personal agency. That’s why we are called to SUSTAIN and not to OBEY.

MICHAEL N
Following…

PETER O
Nature in this world, being a fallen world, is imperfect and has flaws. This is intended. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience. I also have genetic flaws which makes me predisposed to cancer and diabetes. God ‘made’ me that way as well but expects me to deal with it positively based on his commands which come via the mouth of his servants. I don’t go kill myself because someday I may suffer because of this. Suffering is part of the experience. It is a refiners fire that sanctifies my body and spirit. Because people deal with suffering doesn’t make them bad, just human. It’s when we recognize truth (which is the only reality) of Gods word and act accordingly, he saves us through Christ. That people must suffer with same sex attraction is undeniable, but it is how they grow through the suffering by obeying Gods commands through his servants. In the end all is made right and we will understand the purpose of our suffering. You presume to know Gods mind, when it has already been expressly known through scripture and prophecy both ancient and modern.

People may feel that it’s not fair to have to deal with these challenges. But physical genetic defects happen, fair or not, it’s all part of this training program God made for us called ‘life’

But people who aren’t flawed physically?

That’s all about free agency which can be mastered.

LOREN B
When we read the scriptures, we are commanded to “be perfect even as your father in heaven is.” What is God, a perfected man, a holy man who we learn from modern day revelation is in a holy covenant of marriage our heavenly mother. If we are to be perfect like God as Jesus explicit told us to be we must emulate him. Anything less would be breaking that command.

But some will say why do some feel attraction the same sex? Doesnt it make God cruel to create same sex attraction in a person, or are we yhe bigots for not understanding people are born with and it comes from God?

This kind of thinking highlights a few fallacies intoduced by satan. One that sin is natural and obedience is unnatural. That our appitietes and desires should be the guide of our actions not some “tradition”. Our personality is created by God therefore our feelings, urges, and appitietes are from him.

Let’s talk about the first one, King Benjamin made it clear that after the fall man, with sin and righteousness (as explained in The Gospel) enticing us one way or another, we would have to chose whether to follow our natural appitiates and give in to sin, or give into the enticings of the spirit and put off the natural man, and obey Gods commands. The temple clarifies this further by explaining the law of chasity, is between a man and a woman entered into a covenant of marriage and reminding us the Lord command have set boundaries on or desires and desire with in that law. But this is the choice we have to make. God has told us time and time again he will not force us to be like him. To give up the natural man and be made holy through Christ. We must chose it.

The second issue is thinking that our appitiates, passions and desires are somehow more important that o”old, out dated traditions”, the priesthood and the blacks was a matter of policy not doctrine as marriage is. We run a danger in labeling doctrine as “tradition”. God instituted the doctrine of covenant marriage and has made it clear all others are either counterfiet or done by authority other than his. Why did God institute it as between a man and a woman. Because it is how he lives and he lives it because that is how it is suppose to be. It is rightous to do it as God has. Because of this, we must understand covenant marriage isnt a policy or tradition made up and established by man but rather the only way to live that is in harmony with God and the only way to be like him.

The last fallacy is the hardest to understand as it is hard to understand if your heart is hardened by a desire to be “natural” or sin in otherwords. D&C teaches us that our inteligence or us as core individuals was not created but eternal and from the begining we had a choice to become like God. We knew, likely in great detail what sin on earth would be like, and how it would be that some would, because if the vail succumb to sin. Hence satans plan. He would save all of us, whether we were worthy of it or not. There would be no agency because there would be no consequence. God s plan would place us at odds with all our flaws and put opposition to our obedience. These would be fact of life. We knew that some might not overcome sin. He opposed god by saying no would overcome sin and become as God and christ would not atone. But for many, we overcame satan, testifying of christ and overcoming the first trial of our faith. That is the beauty of the restored gospel, we learn of our eternal nature, that we, even in heaven, are beings who choose, like God. Lehi explained that there must be oposition to all things, and if we understand 2 nephi 2, we understand we must use christ to over come the enticings of sin and inherent weakness in our mortal state, being supported by christ, not ourselves or satan. This was by design not arbitray choice or malicious intent. To say we are created a certain way is to give into satan argument, that we cant overcome and we are acted upon, and cannot act for ourselves. That we will sin and have no recourse other than to sin.

But still it is hard to overcome weakness and sin, especially when the world, and by world i mean individuaks who hold worldly power, try and justify their own desires by making good evil and evil good. Or they deny God as revealed and make God and his christ into a caricature of themselves having a form of godliness but dening the power thereof. There is a lot of pressure to conform and adopt these attitudes. but we must never give in, we must overcome this error with the light of the restored gospel. If we dont have the sufficient answers we want we must hold to what truth we have and endure hardship and attacks of doubt with faith, prayer, and desire to act, even if it is imprefectly on that command to be lie God our father. We are promised strength to endure and support as we suffer reviling and false accusers who see our desire to follow christ and our example as an offense as it strikes them with their own guilt.

Now, if you cannot find this by reading, listening to the words if the prophet than your heart is hardened and you sin against the light and greater will be your condemnation for you have accepted covenants to listen to god, and his annointed one, christ, by his holy spirit which you have recieved and by his annointed and chosen prophets.

I know God guides his prophets and is the same today, yesterday and forever. Greater light and knowledge will come. We will perfect the church, its people, practices and policy. We will have added understanding to the gospel and doctrine of christ. Our prophets will continue to be imperfect as we all are but God is a God miracles and faith in Christ will overcome our doubt, weaknesses and short comings, as a people, families and individuals. This I know because I have recieved the holy spirits witness.

At one point in our history both redheads and left-handed people were vilified as being demonic spawn. So let’s kill them all and then go to their parents and tell them that OUR problem with THEIR children is just a part of living in a fallen world — and that they should accept our choice as part of the trials of their mortal probation. Let’s see how well that goes over.

There is nothing — NOTHING — about being LGBT that warrants their current status as second-class citizens in the world and certainly not in the Kingdom of God.

The policy put forward in the letter is a direct descendant of thinking that came from the assumption that homosexuality was a contagious psychological/moral disorder. Even the Church has abandoned that line of thought — so it’s time they abandon the fruit of the poisoned tree.

In response to your premise, you raise the point that being born with a condition doesn’t necessarily grant that condition any sort of special dispensation from God. And I actually agree with you. People are born with a host of conditions and predilections — none of which are automagically “right” or “good” in the sight of God.

Of course that really doesn’t have any bearing on my position. I know that some of my LGBT brothers and sisters (and our allies) have made arguments like that. But that is not my argument.

It’s important to me that being LGBT is in-born because it negates the idea that it’s possible to “catch” the gay — and therefore negates the social framework that grew up around that incorrect belief.

Being gay, trans, bi, or lesbian isn’t a sin — any more than being a albino or left-handed person is a sin. We’re only handicapped or challenged or burdened to the extent that society insists on vilifying us. Society has reason to be concerned about hate and violence and robbery and the like — but society has nothing to fear from a minority population that loves differently.

SCOTT Z
Christian Harrison, with out any desire to attack you personally, I am concerned about your erroneous perceptions of God, prophets and doctrine in general.

God is perfect and as such, is incapable of making any mistakes (commission or omission) because as soon as He does, He ceases to be God. To say that God made gay, trans, bi or lesbian people that way in fact is saying that God made a mistake. Also the notion that He was opposed to it before but isn’t now or that because God loves all people, He now accepts, approves and endorses said indulgence also implies God makes mistakes. There is only one individual that promotes those fallacies as truth is the great deceiver that wanted everyone to follow him because God’s plan was flawed. In the preexistence, Satan attempted to deceive us by claiming that his way was better than God, our Father. Satan is still using that same ploy even though he has been using it for thousands of years. Doesn’t seem to be too outdated to me. Just as Satan’s tactics aren’t outdated, God’s teachings aren’t outdated. Who are we to question or go against God? Anytime we do, it ultimately ends in misery.

We are told to follow the prophets because, even though they may make mistakes because they are human, if they ever start to go against Christ, THEY WILL BE REMOVED! That means death. Starting with Joseph Smith up to Spencer W. Kimball each were directed (by the Lord) that blacks were not to hold the priesthood. Who the Lord dictates blessings to be denied to is not our call to question. For those that went against it once blacks were approved and left the church, that is THEIR problem and they will answer to the Lord. Unless they changed their attitude/thinking through repentance, the Lord will judge them fairly and completely because they didn’t bring their behavior closer to alignment with His.

While being gay, trans, bi or lesbian isn’t a sin in and of itself, it IS a sin if those desires/impulses are acted on. If marriage was created/instituted by man, who married Adam and Eve such that God recognized and stated that they were husband and wife? God married them because He instituted and defined what marriage is with them. Man can attempt to change that definition all they want but it DOESN’T change the fact that God gave the definition already. If ANYONE is in a sexually active lifestyle/relationship that falls outside the boundaries that God established, they are committing sin AND MUST REPENT! The LGBT community is doing nothing more than mocking God and slapping Him and society in the face by claiming they have the ‘right’ to marry. Within in the church, someone must show they are living according to a minimum level of standards BEFORE they can go to the Temple and receive those blessings. The LGBT community DOESN’T meet the minimum level of standards required to get married. You claim that God wouldn’t expect someone in the LGBT community to marry someone that is completely opposite because that would be asking them to be miserable. Some of that statement is true because God doesn’t want any of His children to be unhappy or miserable. The problem is that you are taking the position that God will alter His standards and align them with sinners. God has stated over and over many times and different ways that wickedness never has led to happiness. If anyone in the LGBT community (or anyone who is committing sexual or other sins for that matter) wants to be truly happy, they MUST alter their actions and align themselves with the standards God has established. If they do it having faith in God, He will ultimately lead them to a state of happiness because they learned and overcame the things that they needed to for them to be happy. As it is right now, anyone in the LGBT community that thinks pursuing their desires will make them happy is being deceived and deluded by Satan. They will no more be happy than an alcoholic is when they are drunk or the drug addict is when they are high. Same-sex attraction isn’t a sin but acting on it is.

Your whole argument is based on deception from Satan including your ‘answer’ from the Lord. God cannot and will not tell anyone (through revelation or any other way) that going against Him is the right way or thing to do yet Satan can and WILL tell people that going against God is good or right and he can even make them feel warm and fuzzy at the moment. If you are so certain that God told you that LGBT lifestyle is okay, why are you so defensive and why are you so critical of His leaders? True revelation binds peace AND it brings one one step closer to alignment with God.

I hope you will recognize that you HAVE been deceived and that it has been by Satan so that you will be wearing the right uniform when the game is over. I of course am referring to what Jeffrey R. Holland said:

“The FUTURE of this world has long been DECLARED; the final outcome between GOOD and evil is already KNOWN. There is absolutely no question as to who WINS because the VICTORY has already been posted on the SCOREBOARD. The only really strange thing in all of this is that we are still down here on the FIELD trying to decide which TEAM’S JERSEY we want to wear!”

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Scott, I scarcely know where to begin.

Let’s start with this gem: “God is perfect and as such, is incapable of making any mistakes because as soon as He does, He ceases to be God. To say that God made gay, trans, bi or lesbian people that way in fact is saying that God made a mistake.”

LGBT persons aren’t mistakes. So making them “that way” doesn’t say a thing about God — except, perhaps, that he’s more fabulous than you dare imagine.

HINAURI W
Christian: hilarious you’re convinced an answer you have received trumps revelation a prophet and his apostles have been given. I mean, if YOU say the apostles are “wrong on this one” of course then it must be true! Sustaining a leader isn’t blindly following every counsel it also requires a sense of humility and realising that you’re not privy to all that they are privy to, that you don’t know all the answers, that answers we receive may not satisfy all the we questions we have. So Therein lies a true test of faith & genuine sustaining.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
One more… “God cannot and will not tell anyone that going against Him is the right way or thing to do” — I’m not sure how this is supposed to persuade me to abandon the answer He so clearly gave me.

“God told you that LGBT lifestyle is okay, why are you so defensive and why are you so critical of His leaders?” — because His leaders aren’t above reproach? Because the nice Daily Universe person asked me why I thought the policy was wrong? Because my brothers and sisters in the Church are literally killing themselves because of the crushing weight of having to listen to men and women they revere call them less-than-human — unworthy of the love and growth and happiness that comes from romantic love… Because saying nothing isn’t an option unless I want to be complicit in their deaths and countless other lives ruined.

PETER O
Christian… I admit this conversation is like talking to a wall of LGBT talking points.

The brethren and the scriptures couldn’t be more clear. You claim that it’s all about ‘love’ and how could ‘love’ be wrong. Sexual attraction does not equal ‘love’. I can ‘love’ a man in a filios (brotherly) or agape (heavenly, charity, pure love of Christ) way and not have a sexual attraction for him. The love to which you undoubtedly refer is ‘eros’ or erotic, sensual and is given only for the purpose of procreation in the proper context of marriage between a man and woman. But you know this. Yet, you seek to pervert the meaning of the term and insult God by equating his love, with sensual desire…

If that’s what you think of as love, then your God an mine are not the same…

PETER O
And you’re the one suggesting that people who have these feelings are second class citizens… No one here has said nothing of the sort. They have all the privileges that any child of God has…. On conditions of righteous behavior…. But that extends only to those who are obedient

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Hinauri: since the Brethren CAN be wrong and HAVE been wrong, then it follows that there WILL be times when a lowly member’s prayer is answered in contradiction to the expressed opinions of the Brethren.

It’s that simple.

Of course, it could be that they’ve not been given a single word of revelation on this issue. Frankly, I can’t imagine for a second President Packer (may he rest in peace) ever doubting himself. It’s more likely that some of the Brethren know the direction the Church will eventually take and are biding their time. Much like so many of the Brethren bid their time in the wind-up to the 1978 revelation revoking the 150 year old practice of denying priesthood and temple blessings to black members.

And as an out gay man who has diligently kept faith in a Church that insists on his second-class status — I humbly submit that I know what it means to wait on the Lord. I wait on the Lord as I home teach each month, as I attend all my meetings, as I teach EQ, as I organize the annual ward chili cook-off, and as I endure the tone deaf protestations of other Mormons so certain that Things Will Never Change™ — ignorant that things have already changed.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Peter: What I have said should not be dismissed simply because others have said it.

Sexual attraction and love are not synonymous and I’ve not used them interchangeably. In fact (without rereading all I’ve said), I’m pretty sure I’ve only ever referenced romantic love — something which Elder Boyd K Packer “a dominating influence of [life; that] is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it”.

HINAURI W
Well that’s a matter of opinion. They can make mistakes because they are human, although the Lord is not wrong and cannot be wrong in regards to doctrine, or even timing of altered doctrine – that’s impossible. Here’s the thing, I would fight & protest for your right Christian to love and care for whomever you chose to love. We all have that right & that freedom to choose who we love. But there is no mistaking the law of marriage was established by God and can only be changed or altered by Him, so this battle to get the so called ignorant in the church to realise it’s only matter of time before its changed is in vain. Man has no power to alter such doctrine until it is first altered by God. And when and if it is? Yay! But until then you can’t fault us for following what we know is true.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Hinauri: “But there is no mistaking the law of marriage* was established by God and can only be changed or altered by Him, so this battle to get the so called ignorant in the church to realise it’s only matter of time before its changed is in vain. Man has no power to alter such doctrine until it is first altered by God. And when and if it is? Yay! But until then you can’t fault us for following what we know is true.”

Of course I can fault you. I fault you deeply … and I’ll forgive quickly, you know, as soon as the policy changes and everyone here starts singing the old Mormon tune “we always knew it was that way”. But your beliefs have real consequences. Moreover, the Church is literally built on the back of bottom-up decisions — so crying out for change is as Mormon as it comes.

* Marriage is ordained of God to accomplish certain of His goals — but I’d be hard-pressed to say that it was ever His intention that women were bought and sold as chattel. Marriage is good. But it could always be better. You’re worth more than a goat, Hinauri — don’t forget that.

MATT D
Scott Z … “Without any desire to attack you personally, I am concerned about your erroneous perceptions of God, prophets and doctrine in general.”

Scott, I gotta say, after reading these comments, I find the majority of the LDS members’ opinions expressed on this thread to be extremely judgemental and homophobic. Then to level such an accusation such as yours on an internet forum against someone with whom you disagree is a low blow, especially for someone who claims to be a follower of Xrist … I happen to know Christian personally. We served in the same mission. The people for whom I have such a high level of respect are few and far between, but Christian is one of them.

Members of the Church have been commanded to ‘work out their salvation with fear and trembling before G-d’, and when they ‘lack wisdom, let them ask of G-d, who giveth to all men liberally’.

To say that a person ‘chooses to be LGBT’ or caught the gay virus is close-minded at best, and naive beyond belief. It is not a choice. Do you honestly think that someone would choose that identity, knowing full well what horrors society will inflict upon them? I cannot conceive the level of courage it takes for anyone, let alone an active member fo the Church, to come out of the closet and still remain active.

Your assertion that someone who receives a different message has been deceived by the adversary, or is receiving ‘incorrect’ revelation is absurd. I can count many times when as a father and husband, the guidance I received differed greatly from that which my Church leaders counselled. Had I not trusted my answers, obtained through prayer and fasting, I would not be here. Period.

As for the plan of salvation, procreation is an important part of it, but I do not believe that it is the end-all-be-all of the plan. The purpose of the plan is to return from whence we came. Period. To say that the LGBT community would be withheld those blessings is absurd. Prophets have said that single sisters who have never married will not be denied any blessing in the next life. Why would a gay member, through no fault of their own, not be able to obtain the same blessings? To suggest otherwise would imply that G-d is contradictory. I see no difference.

A person has no more choice in their sexual orientation or identity or with whom they fall in love than they do over the color of their eyes.

Honestly, I have rarely seen such a level of blind acceptance as I have seen on this thread.

Christian, keep the faith, my brother. I am confident in the knowledge that you will emerge victorious.

The others, you need to quit judging or trying to fit everyone into your worldview, because your worldview couldn’t be more wrong.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Peter: I’m not the one suggesting that we’re second-class citizens. I’m merely pointing out that we’re treated that way. Put on your empathy hat and tell me that — being told that our love isn’t the right kind of love and that our dreams for happy ever afters aren’t the right kind of dreams — you can’t see how we’d walk away thinking we’re second-class citizens in the Church.

And that’s the Church NOW. When I was in high school I was called an abomination — someone who’s mere existence was an offense to God second only to murder. Not the sex act, mind you — but my very existence. And while I was getting that at church, my gay brothers at BYU were having electrodes attached to their genitals in the basement in vain attempts to “fix” them.

I don’t need fixing. I’m not broken.

A dial that goes to 11 isn’t broken just because you can’t count that high.

PETER O
Way to gloss over real love and focus on the physical aspect. God has never in the entire history of the world endorsed sensual same sex relationships. Every culture that has adopted it pagan or otherwise was quickly wiped off the map. You can argue with me or logic all you like, but the slag heap that became sodom and Gomorrah testifies of that

PETER O
I am aware that Mormon culture can be very judgmental. That will be a fatal flaw and I am not judging you either. I simply stand on what the brethren have said and is stated in scripture. You can deny reality all you like, but it doesn’t make it less real. God will make things right in all things and I feel for your struggle, but there are some things that are immutable. That only a man with a woman making a family can have increase is one of these things.

MATT D
Nobody ever said anything about the physical side of the relationship, Peter. I know plenty of LGBT who do not engage in any sexual activity. Not everyone in their community is looking for the next hookup or can’t wait to jump the next person they see. They are no more likely to jump into bed with an anonymous partner than a heterosexual. This only goes to show just how skewed the majority of LDS members’ perception of the LGBT community really is.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Um… romantic love isn’t a gloss. I’m not sure how you think that gay love could only be physical — maybe I don’t understand straight people that well. Is your love merely physical? Because the love I feel is deep and abiding and romantic. I mean, if I believe all those songs I heard in junior high, I have to assume that straight people understand romantic love — though watching Game of Thrones leads me to believe that you straight people have a pretty messed up idea of what love is.

And Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality. Have you even read the story? Or are you just aping the comments of your forebears who also, probably, failed to read and/or understand it. In Ezekiel, it is stated plainly: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy” — a sentiment that Joseph Smith later repeated.

MATT D
A sentiment that is all too common in every country today.

CHRIS H
Christian Harrison, this is what happens when you put your pearls before the swine. You rock.

MATT D
Peter, if only a man with a woman making a family can have increase is an immutable reality, what about those who are unable to have children of their own and are unable to adopt? will they never have increase?

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Peter: God made Eve from Adam’s rib. Something tells me there’s more to this whole “eternal increase” thing than an eternity of marital relations.

Heck, scientists on earth — right this very moment — can make children from the genetic material of the male alone. I’m guessing God has this thing down, pat.

But let’s pretend for one second that you’re right, and eternal increase is only available to hetero couples — why not allow me the chance to fulfill the measure of my creation on earth (find the man of my dreams, marry, and adopt the children you straight people throw away) and then fix everything in the millennium?

In the end, I suspect that this has little to do with any profound doctrinal concerns (because those can be addressed). In the end, y’alls disgust with homosexuality is an extension of y’alls disgust with gay sex. And I get it. Girly parts freak me out. But I’m able to differentiate between my discomfort with something y’all do in the privacy of your homes and what God hopes for me.

PETER O
Wrest the scriptures all you like… If you all really are endowed, returned missionaries, then get your heads around what happens in the temple…

Also, I don’t think anything is going to change for the church doctrinally any time soon, unless they are going to change all the above mentioned…. Gender is an immutable part of life and of our experience here and the guidelines have been well established for time immemorial.

I can only experience love in all its aspects with my wife in the proper context of God endorsed marriage.

And judgmental? Let the name calling begin! I as a ‘swine’ don’t need for you to agree… I’m only pointing out facts. You all are the ones that really need to get in touch with reality. Read the Proclamation on the Family… Those are hard facts…. If it hurts your feel goods because it goes against what you think you want, there’s nothing for it but to deal.

No hate, sorrow only for how misguided and misled you have all been.

God Bless and may you find peace.

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Peter: Unless you’re willing to bring up what, exactly, in the temple should persuade me, it’s impolite to bring it into the conversation.

And which scriptures have I wrested?

You’re adorable, Peter. I look forward to welcoming you to the right side of the fight when your hand is forced by the Brethren. Of course, you could be correct, now… but you apparently need permission.

MATT D
I think he’s referring to Eve and the created from adam’s rib, Ezekiel and the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah, and the whole James 1:5 … but he can stay with his opinion, it’s his right … just like it’s my right to think he’s wrong grin emoticon

CHRIS H
Swine and pearls was drawing from scripture. Do you hate the Bible?

CHRISTIAN HARRISON
Ah. Well … if quoting scripture is wresting it, then … well … we’re all bumfuzzled.

Thank you to Christian for contributing to this discussion and providing insightful context.

A man with ‘gay’ inclinations, who nevertheless does not indulge them (converse is true also for a sister) CAN, in good faith, marry a person of the OPPOSITE sex IN THE TEMPLE provided he sincerely believes that he will keep the commandments including the law of chastity. It would be imperative, IMO, that he had discussed with his fiancée his ‘issues’ candidly beforehand, so she enters the marriage having been given full disclosure. Else, if in short order he goes to having homosexual relationships, in effect ‘cheating’ on her with a man instead of another woman, then either he’s committed marital fraud or he was not of sound mind (i.e., unable to resolve the dichotomy of his gay inclinations but ‘posing’ as a ‘straight’). Either, in most states, I believe, would be grounds for an annulment (but only if the annulment is requested within the time frame of the applicable state law).

A man who enters the temple to marry, as in ANY other situation where someone enters the temple knowing themselves to be ‘unworthy’ (sorry, Wayne and Garth, I LIKE your form of ‘unworthiness’), is engaged in serious deceit. I can think of in no way where the recent statement read in Sacrament meetings, the Proclamation on the Family, and other applicable Church teachings would tell someone to behave in such a deceitful manner. However, we ARE a Church that has to pick its membership from the “Hew-Mon” race, and some of our number at times fear the approval of (wo)men (e.g. their LDS peers) than God. Another case where, as Al Pacino’s character in “The Devil’s Advocate” stated…”Free Agency…it is a (Witch with a Captial “B”)

I hope this helps provide some insight to those who are straight. It seems to me that the Mormon dialogue on this topic would be elevated by discontinuing a few terms and practices:
– gender is not biological sex.
– romantic love is not the same as sexual love
– let’s quit blaming God for human error, or if error is too strong a word, for the limits of human understanding.
– let’s quit blaming Satan for any viewpoint that challenges our own
– gay people are far more impacted by this policy than straight people ever could be; therefore, a little respect for the lived experience of gay people would not go amiss.
– “blind obedience” is when you obey without knowing why (hence the word “blind”).
– the word “lifestyle” sounds like you are selling argyle sweaters, not identifying your innate sexual orientation.

Thanks, Christian. Some excellent thoughts. Dare I hope that the DU took this down because so many of the comments from DU are ill-informed and don’t show the church to advantage?

#3 – If Hawk were the first female major-league player (the commercial hypothesized same kinda wimps out, IMO), and batting in a game at AT&T Park, that one would have towered high over the 421 sign (where Bonds hit his record-breaker in ’07, I was there to see it) and landed in McCovey cove, capsizing nearby watercraft. Great post.

Christian, I appreciate you speaking up; my thoughts are very similar to yours. I don’t think we understand the full plan of salvation; I sometimes wonder if the purpose of life is not to procreate (said as someone diagnosed with unexplained infertility) but to learn how to become one with someone. That our intimate relationships are refiner’s fires that force us to grow and stretch and learn to become and love like God. The next life, as far as I’m concerned, is a place where we’ve all learned to love each other as one.

Our ward didn’t read the letter last week, but my favorite testimony borne from the pulpit was from a BYUI religion professor who stated that “The words of men, proclamations, and laws are all fallible by their very nature. There is none perfect but Christ.”

As I read your responses above I’m impressed by your faithfulness and knowledge.

A couple of thoughts to consider.

Yes, God is perfect and doesn’t make mistakes. For that very reason opposition in all things exist in a fallen telestial world.

To me, that means the there is opposition in all things in this fallen word. The word “all” as big meaning for a small word.

There are two kinds of “opposition” that are particularly difficult to deal with for humankind: 1. War, and 2. Birth defects.

Having been to war in Viet Nam, I experienced humankind at there worst. War is the lowest act humankind participates in. Yet, God is there, answering the prayers of those who turn to Him.

I wasn’t born with birth defects, but I have had contact with many who do have birth defects. Things like mental illness, Downs Syndrome, and a host of other abnormalities that exist in this world. Note: I am using the term birth defects broadly. Yet, God is there, answering the prayers of those who turn to Him.

Christian Harrison is wrong about some things–his proposal to relocate the state penitentiary to downtown SLC springs to mind–but he owned this discussion. Those poor BYU kids–more sinned against than sinners I think. It’s not their fault the Mormon church continues to lead from the rear on issues related to homosexuality.

easy question: since homosexuality is not a defect, it certainly can’t be a birth defect.

One thing that’s helpful would be to contrast the medical model of disability (i.e., bodies are defined statistically as a set of activities they can perform, so bodies that are limited or restricted from performing those activities are considered disabled) vs the social model of disability (i.e., disabilities are created socially through the ways that society places systemic barriers, has negative attitudes [whether conscious or unconscious] that exclude).

There’s a difference between a defect and normal variation within a species. Blue eyes aren’t the norm, but they aren’t a defect. Type AB- blood is significantly less common than homosexuality, but it’s not a defect.

In my business I deal with a large number of people. Recently, a customer I’ve known for a long time, a parole officer, told me about an individual he is working with who has sexual fulfillment by crashing cars. This landed him in jail. I hope he can learn to deal with his affliction.

I am not relating this to be demeaning in any way. The facts of life are that people are afflicted with all kinds of “defects” that relate to their sexual natures.

since defects are socially constructed, talking about “real proof” (one way or the other) is a categorical error.

Jared (16)

I firstly think that they are not a comparable situation to consenting adults who are attracted to one another and who are able to pursue fulfilling, healthy relationships with one another that improve themselves, each other, and society in general.

But I think that my point about the social model is important here — it’s defective to the extent that society doesn’t know what to do with it, and therefore excludes, marginalizes, oppresses, and so on.

re comment 18:

Please note that when you talk about someone who “has sexual fulfillment by crashing cars”, that is behavior that is a danger to himself and to others (and which landed him in jail.)

But when you are talking about a gay or lesbian, their pursuing relationships is not a danger to themselves or to others.

So, it’s a very different situation. That’s why the comparison is demeaning — the thing that you see as “facts of life” actually are missing very important details.

I don’t know your feelings about faith in God. But the scriptures carry the assumption that mankind can get into difficulty with the powerful sex drive we’ve been given. It is a powerful drive for nearly everyone on the planet. Some people, like the one I mentioned, illustrate just how far out one can get with their sex drive.

We all need to control our appetites and passions if we want to follow Jesus Christ and inherit a place in the celestial kingdom. Those who would do otherwise have other kingdoms of glory they can inherit.

Because your supposed biological idea of what a normal human being is supposed to be is socially determined. Nature doesn’t flag some bodies as normal and others as not… That analysis is done by people. Those people may think they are making sound judgment calls based on appeals to biological concepts, but that still relies on a framework… It is already laden with interpretation.

Post #23 is brilliant! I agree with Andrew S., #22 is a great argument for marriage. I find it curious the church would fight people who WANT to show the ultimate commitment by getting married. If they don’t get married, they will live together and still have sex. If they want to do those things within marriage, it seems to me that the church and its members should support that, not fight it.

You wrote: But when you are talking about a gay or lesbian, their pursuing relationships is not a danger to themselves or to others.

I agree with this 100%.

As I recall, the gay movement began with the idea of “gay unions” and obtaining all the legal rights needed for that union.

However, along the way it morphed into an equality issue. And the unbelievable occurred when the SCOTUS departed from our Christian heritage and redefined marriage to include homosexuals. For people of faith this is unacceptable, but it is now the law of the land.

All along the way, the advocates for gay marriage said that nothing would change for the rights of religion. However, as we can now see that isn’t the case.

The Christian Baker in Oregon is being fined $130,000 for not wanting to participate in gay marriage activity.

I personally disagree with him. I deal with gay individual often without concern.

But what about the right to opt out of participating in something that is contrary to ones religious views.

“But what about the right to opt out of participating in something that is contrary to ones religious views.” This was the same rationale many “Christians” used to uphold their racist views after the civil rights movement.

It’s getting late. I’m an old man. I was raised at the end of WWII. The assumption in American society was that God was at the helm and the USA was a chosen country. If you don’t believe me, go watch the movies of the era and you will see this unspoken assumption. See War of the Worlds (1953), as one example.

1) Separate is inherently unequal. So to the extent that people believe this (and a lot of people do, given the history of “separate but equal” not being all that equal), those people were always going to go for equality.

2) The way that conservatives fought same sex marriage basically guaranteed there would be a big backlash…I mean, I know for Texas and Oklahoma, the two states I have lived in, same-sex marriage bans came along with bans for state recognition of any same-sex relationships…so, civil union or domestic partnership wouldn’t have been an option.

3) When the Windsor case was decided in 2013, it only applied for federal recognition of marriage. This made the odd situation where if you were in a domestic partnership in some state, then you were not considered married for federal purposes, even though you may have gotten all the same state benefits.

Next, regarding religious liberty cases…

whenever I see the list of cases people raise up as examples of religious liberty being curtailed, I think it’s split between cases that have been absolutely decided correctly according to precedent, cases that have a lot more going behind them than is generally acknowledged, and cases where the problem isn’t same sex marriage or religious liberty per se, but something else.

Like, with the Christian baker situation…the precedent regarding doing business as a public accommodation is that you can’t discriminate *as a public accommodation* according to classes the state has deemed to be suspect classes. In other words, you can’t say, “We are a business open to a general public…but not for gays.” That has been the case for years and years for things like race, sex, etc., (You can’t just say, “We’re open to business for everyone…except black people.”) The only change is that many cities and states are saying that LGBT should be similarly protected under that.

The problem at worst in that case is not a concern of religious liberty but is a concern about laws regarding how high damages can be in such a situation like that. And of course, those damages aren’t final — they are still under review, challenge, etc.,

A man will rise and demand, “By what right does God choose one race or people above another?” I like that form of the question. It is much better than asking by what right God degrades one people beneath another, although that is implied. God’s grading is always upward. If he raises up a nation, it is that other nations may be raised up through its ministry.

If he exalts a great man, an apostle of liberty or science or faith, it is that He might raise a degraded people to a better condition. The divine selection is not [alone] a prize, a compliment paid to the man or the race–it is a burden imposed. To appoint a Chosen people is not a pandering to the racial vanity of a “superior people,” it is a yoke bound upon the necks of those who are chosen for a special service.

In short, God “hath made [Israel] great for what He is going to make [Israel] do”.

So it’s based on your version of “true religion”? There aren’t any studies regarding your definition of true religion, but based on just religion, if you look at Europe, the higher the rate of atheists, the higher the standard of living. The middle east, however, if full of the opposite of atheists, people who consider themselves very religious, and it’s the area of the world I have the least interest in making my home.

“One thing is known, it is not normal. Only 2 to 4% of the population are true homosexuals.”

.2% of the world population is Mormon, .07% active Mormons. In other words, 10 to 20 times the number of baptized Mormons and approximately 35 to 60 times the number of active Mormons are “true homosexuals”. I guess that makes Mormons not normal and possibly suffering from a birth defect, Jared.

#11: What exactly is a “true homosexual”…? I was under the impression that it was fairly widely agreed upon by ‘experts’ that human sexuality ranges on a scale (kinsey scale). So as to whether there are ‘true’ or ‘false’ homosexuals is really looking at it as a black and white issue, but instead it is more often shades of gray.

Stumbled on this thread after it was mentioned somewhere else. How embarrassing it must be for BYU, its owners and all sustaining members who support the institution. Those participating had little knowledge of the scriptures or grammar, let alone our own church’s official stand on this critical issue. But there is some good in it: those monitoring it (and shutting it down) got another taste for how their wrong-headed approaches and responses to this issue are tearing a church apart.

What about those of us in the LDS faith that choose to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience?

That means accepting the collective voice of the Prophet and Apostles on this issue as the word of God. Like the plea of the Savior to his apostles while on earth, they are one on this issue.

Along those lines, you and others in the faith are entitled to worship how, where or what you may. That belief, however, does not grant you the authority to change the process of devine revelation for the church as a whole. Or, to change what the church as a whole believes. In other words, it is your belief, not the belief of the church.

I choose to follow my faith as revealed by the 13 men in the presiding Quorum as the official church doctrine, or as God’s word. I request you grant me that same privilege, to follow the dictates of my conscience in peace without judgement or continued pressure to to follow your belief.

When two new Apostles are called and the quorum is split into two quorums again I expect the revelation on this issue will be the same from both quorums. I expect it will be the same until the Savior returns. As such, that is Gods word on the issue as I see it (and as the Church sees it) so allow me to follow that revelation in peace!

#51 – Ken, at least WITHIN the LDS Church we have some ‘wiggle room’ to agree or not as to what constitutes the ‘dictates of our conscience’…the Lord doesn’t ‘command in ALL things’ (D&C 58:26,27). However, this isn’t a free-for-all, do-what-ever-ya-want kinda club, b/c that’s not an ‘organization’, that’s a mob. That’s why there IS a hierarchical structure, to promote at least a modicum of orthodoxy, to correct error and heresy, and, when all else fails, to exclude from our society those that refuse to abide the fundamentals or seek to destroy the Church.

My concern is that a form of neo-paganism is in effect being ‘established, primarily via misuse of the Judicial branch of the Federal Government, under the guise of ‘equality’ or ‘tolerance’ but ends up being inimical to Conservative forms of Christianity, the LDS Church included. We’ve allowed a well-organized and motivated gaggle of radicals, hell-bent on not merely getting their way but also using the bully pulpit of the judiciary to destroy those they hate…and the ‘silent’ majority yet remains silent, b/c it hasn’t directly affected them…yet.

Ken, I’ve seen no instance where Christian denies you the privilege of following the leaders of the church in peace. Of course you can follow them, and no one can take peace from you but yourself. Remember Elder Bednar’s recent talk wherein he stated that someone else cannot make us mad, but rather, we choose to be angry. I submit that if we lose our peace we are troubled for reasons within our own hearts. I’ve experienced this many times in my decades of life—I thought I had something all figured out, yet something down deep was troubled because I hadn’t grown enough to know more critical truths. Indeed, I feared knowing more because it would unsettle my “figured out” assumptions and thus rattle my peace. But if life eternal is to know God, I must be willing to keep learning by listening, studying, pondering, praying and especially—considering possible ideas that are unsettling. The Savior has given us the keys we need to do this safely: ask, seek, and knock. We knock on the door of the unknown….un-comfortable…..un-figured-out……un-settling…..un-imaginable…..and un-considered. Christian lives a life most know NOTHING of. Truly nothing. We have a tremendous blessing offered to us to listen to him and consider his words with OPEN hearts and minds according to the pattern the Lord set above. It may be difficult, even fearful. But it is a worthy opportunity to see what God may wrought within our hetero-minded Mormon-minded sincere hearts.

Reading this was hard, because it reminded me of my ignorance once upon a time. It’s incredibly frustrating to see this ignorance persist among fellow Mormons.

God bless Christian Harrison for the pioneering work that I would never have it in me to do.

I believe one day our collective understanding of God’s actual unchanging standard will one day be more accurate than the double standard we have so long collectively believed.

Sin is only that which separates us from God, and being in a healthy and committed marriage according to our own orientation can bring us closer to God.

It sickens me that so many men, confident in “authority,” stubbornly believe that our current policy (which makes no distinction between legal and lawful marriage between committed gay couples and the most vile promiscuity) is truly God’s will. I believe God is bigger and more nuanced and more loving and inclusive than that, but we humans are sometimes slow to discern His actual will.

I can easily envision a day when the Church “disavows the theories advanced in the past” that being a happily married gay person was a “sin” (just like they once taught interracial marriage was a sin, among other now disavowed teachings once accepted as doctrine.) I’ll trust in God, but LDS authorities are not God.

You missed my point. It is my observation that liberals everywhere have one commonality. They will believe what they believe and won’t stop pressing until they can force everyone to believe what they believe. They are totalitarians. They don’t allow dissent. They don’t allow others to disagree. Those that believe in same gender marriage tend to be liberal and follow this tactic.

Faithful LDS people believe we live in a Kingdom, with Christ as the king. Fortunately it is not a democracy or reign of the judges. One man leads as the Prophet with two or sometimes three counselers. The quorum of the 12 Apostles is equal in authority. Together they act as one and make policy for the church. Either you follow their revelation as a member or you have an alternate view.

I am saying allow me to follow the Prophet and the Apostles without trying to force your view on me. If you choose to follow them, that is great. If you choose not to that is fine, but don’t try and force me to reject them.

1. The rhetorical style of these Millennials is dominated by a kind of BoM-like calling to repentance which is absent, even among our own conservative commentators like Ken and Jared. Even at M*, commentators don’t have this kind of fear-of-God sobriety in their highly orthodox responses. This at least is heartening. With maturity comes nuance.

2. Regarding the “birth defect” discussion: I think we should at least appreciate the fact that when members call homosexuality a birth defect, they have already moved away from LDS orthodoxy into a kind of middle-ground, accepting that homosexuality is an unalterable, God-given identity. Calling that identity a “birth defect” is merely a way of trying to reconcile eternal LDS theology with temporal reality. To say that homosexuality is not a birth defect necessitates abandoning the entire core of the LDS doctrine of Eternal Life, which is predicated upon God’s promise to Abraham of “endless seed.” The eternal position of procreation in LDS doctrine makes it difficult to accept the eternal nature of homosexuality which is by definition non-procreative.

So LGBT advocates should recognise that calling homosexuality a “birth defect” is actually a very liberal, tolerant position for a Mormon. I know it doesn’t sound that way, but that’s the reality. Most LGBT advocates don’t have the LDS idea of a gendered, procreative heaven anyway. So what’s the harm in letting Mormons have their after-life fantasies if they still accept the reality of unalterable homosexuality in this life? This life is all that matters for most people. Let Mormons worry about the after-life as they see it, and define things according to that paradigm if it helps them. Is that too much to ask?

3. For the sake of the conservative members of this discussion like Peter O and Logan H, they might appreciate if their last names were removed, as this is a public forum that will be searchable for years to come. If they change their positions in the future, these words could come back to haunt them. Plus they are just kids.

calling homosexuality a “birth defect” may be a liberal, tolerant position for a Mormon, but one, that’s not really saying much, and two, your discussion of “after-life” ignores the “this life” consequences it often has. I mean, this is not an uncommon position for a lot of conservatives to have, but the problem is not the “birth” part; the problem is not the “unalterable” part. The problem is the “defect” part.

I am thankful for Mormons who think more creatively about a procreative afterlife that isn’t tied to “this world” biological mechanics (e.g., “spirit impregnation”). I’m hoping we get to a day when more Mormons can think creatively on the subject. I don’t think that’s too much to ask, and I don’t think that’s just an LGBT issue, but also a gender equality issue (another place where a lot of Mormons have “this world” and not just “after-life” hangups.)

If Mormon’s doctrine is based on procreation in the next life – why are they so stupid to assume that means celestial human reproduction. It baffles me that e think with the priesthood we scientifically organize world’s but women will be birthing spiritual babies.

In any discussion at W&T, which is part of the Mormon bloggernacle, there is a mix from TBM (a minority) to Millennial Mormons (those who have a compartmentalized faith), to former Mormons, and a few who don’t know much about Mormons.

As a TBM, I am commenting from that perspective, and in turn each person comments from their particular perspective. I try to respect each point of view so I can gain understanding.

I wish each of those who comment would identify their perspective. That would make it easier to understand their approach in discussion like this.

I have another wish. I wish all who comment would be respectful of the various perspectives. I think for the most part we do a good job.

..The policy in the letter is wrong… Full stop. No need to read any further. Just another disgruntled member telling us the FP/Q12 are wrong. No need for further discussion because no matter what is said, those who think church position is “wrong” have proclaimed themselves ordained of God with full authority to say what is and what is not right. And for the rest of us who believe neither a man or woman can take that authority upon themselves to speak for the church, we’re just wasting our time arguing the talking points.

Nate touched on some salient points in #54 that leads to the following thought.

As a TBM, I look to the scriptures, the prophets, and prominent LDS writers to form my perspective. The reason I do so is based on the foundational testimony the Lord has given me.

When I encounter issues like homosexuality I do the best I can to understand how this fits into my perspective. And each of you do the same.

Like many of you, I keep up via the internet on the news of the day. With this approach, I speculate that homosexuality could be a birth defect. There are many theories, birth defect theory is one. At the present time, it is as good as theory as any.

#52 In the eight years I have frequented the bloggernacle I have seen a few TBM persuaded by compartmentalized Mormons and former Mormons to join their ranks. Unfortunately, I can’t think of anyone who has moved from the ranks of compartmentalized and former Mormons to TBM.

I can think a number of scriptures that explain this circumstance, but I won’t cite them.

One of the reasons I participate in the bloggernacle is to help increase faith. It breaks my heart to see church members lose faith or not to grow in faith.

We live in a day of great prosperity. The scripture teach that when a people are prospered by the Lord that is the time when they forget Him.

I think that is what is happening now with many church members. It appears to me that we’re on the verge of losing the Lord’s blessings of prosperity. When that occurs then faith will be increased among many because of their sufferings and they will then become TBM

Buried deep in the thread are a couple really personal points that I think deserve to be repeated:

“Put on your empathy hat and tell me that — [after having been] told [all our lives] that our love isn’t the right kind of love and that our dreams for happy ever afters aren’t the right kind of dreams — [tell me] you can’t see how we’d walk away thinking we’re second-class citizens in the Church… and that’s the Church [today]. When I was in high school I was called an ABOMINATION — someone who’s mere existence was an offense to God. Not the sex act, mind you — but my very existence. And while I was getting that at church, my gay brothers at BYU were having electrodes attached to their genitals … in vain attempts to “fix” them. I don’t need fixing. I’m not broken.”

“Let’s pretend for one second that you’re right, and eternal increase is only available to hetero couples — why not allow me the chance to fulfill the measure of my creation[, here] on earth (find the man of my dreams, marry, and adopt the children you straight people throw away) and then fix everything in the millennium?”

My other points are valid and important… but these two are the emotional heart of my argument.

IDIAT (58): Why stop when I say the letter is wrong? Is your faith so fragile that the opinion of a practicing Mormon is a threat it? If you refuse to engage those who disagree with you — especially those of us who are honestly and truly allies — then you can never say that you love your gay brothers and sisters. Understanding is a form of love — and if you refuse to understand, you can’t really claim to love.

Nate: “So LGBT advocates should recognise that calling homosexuality a “birth defect” is actually a very liberal, tolerant position for a Mormon.” Wow, that sounded a lot like when someone says a person is surprisingly articulate for a black man.

I tend to agree with the point that we should obscure the names a bit and will take care of that.

i think you would greatly appreciate the bloggings of Jeff G at New Cool Thang (he also sometimes comments here). He has written several posts about coming back from disaffection, and the different worldviews he thinks underlies disaffection from TBM. (not saying that I agree with him on all those points)

THANK YOU, CHRISTIAN FOR THIS, THANK YOU!
You are 100% correct. I feel exactly the same way that you do. These matters are the same ones that I struggle with daily, and I do so admire your courage and ability to remain active in the church and your callings, though for me I am no longer certain that I will be able to remain part of the LDS organization.
The letter was clearly from the leaders and not from the Lord, just as I find that most of the information we get from Church headquarters on this subject seems to be.
As you so eloquently stated above, GLBT people (LDS members and non members alkike) ARE NOT MISTAKES made by God, nor are we sub human or second class citizens. But we are certainly made to feel that way in the church by our leaders and other members.
I find that many of the vitriolic resopnses here are representative of how many in the LDS church feel about gay people, and it is very disconcerting and hateful to me, and is only fueling the desire for me to find another home elsewhere in another Restoration church.
When I met with the missionaries just 3 years ago, they taught me about a church that was loving and accepting of “all people”. That has not proven to always be the case, particularly when it comes to gay members, as the thread above shows. Not very “Christ Like” at all!
I can only hope that at sometime in the future, the church leaders and many members will realize what being Christ Like really means.

It seems that the comment from the leader of the boy scouts could be prophetic for the future of the LDS church as well in that the current policy is not sustainable. Nevertheless, the social construct of same-gender attraction seems to be in flux once again with Miley Cyrus championing in the era of sexual fluidity. With general acceptance of same-gender relationships, the closeted bisexual who would previously chosen to suppress the same-gender attraction are being liberated to embrace who they really are. Will religious intolerance be cited for the damaged mental health for those required to live straight or gay monogamous marriages in the future? This trend bodes for decreasing the future of children being raised by parents (opposite or same gender) in committed eternally-oriented monogamous relationships. Perpetuating a religion where the leadership has any moral authority would seem to be at stake.

That article is something else. I have never heard Matthew 18:9 used to justify sex reassignment surgery. I have also never quite heard the suggestion to use SRS to turn gay men and lesbian women into straight women and straight men…(I wonder if the author of the article realizes that one can be trans and also gay because sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things.)

How about we follow the ultimate prophet (Christ) and love one another above all? At least, that was the instruction contained in a different letter which was also read to the wards of the Baltimore, MD, stake last week:

Jared, that article seems to take an overly simplistic view from my perspective; as though there is a particular “male brain”, or “female brain”. I found it altogether disturbing, as a heterosexual woman who finds I otherwise fit the profile of a “male brain” in other contexts.
I would far rather take an individual at their word, than live in a world where medical professionals get to decide that kind of thing for a person. I personally have my doubts that surgery would help, but in any case I doubt such surgery would pass the necessary ethical hurdles required to conduct a study (or at any rate I hope it wouldn’t). It just smacks of yet another way of trying to fit folk into an altogether uncomfortable binary paradigm.

If the science in Jared’s article is legit, that strait female and gay male brains work differently than strait male brains, I predict that it will face as much resistance from the LGBT community as the conservative religious community. Gender identity is as much a cultural as a biological construct, and cultural tides intermingle with biological realities in many complicated ways, and people facing those complicated realities would resist any effort to define their reality on purely biological levels, even if that biology provided tantalising explanations.

For the purposes of this life, I don’t think that homosexuality’s non-procreative nature need be seen as a defect of any kind, as many work-arounds exist for homosexuals who desire offspring, i. e. adoption and IVF.

It is only within the context of LDS religious theology of eternity that it won’t work. If procreation exists in the eternities, as Mormons believe, and if it occurs through a perfected human form, as we also believe, why wouldn’t God correct the procreative flaw in homosexual identity that forces it to resort to adoption and IVF? Infertile LDS couples don’t imagine an eternity of IVF, but believe their procreative capacity will be restored to the natural order. Why would it be different for homosexuals?

It MUST be different for homosexuals, because in this life, homosexuals abhor the idea of being “corrected” into a heterosexual in the next life. They want to fall in love and marry for eternity with someone in this life, same as any strait LDS couple. So they MUST ignore the fact that homosexuality has an inherent procreative flaw which makes it subject to change in the LDS concept of eternity.

To overcome this barrier, I imagine an LDS homosexual must be able to free himself from the usual LDS addiction to the sentimental dreams of “families are forever” which powers the faith of most members. “Families are forever” comes from D&C 132 where it was NOT a sentimental hope, but a terrible commandment to practice polygamy or be destroyed. Whatever D&C 132 was, whether inspired or not, it should give us pause when relying too much on our romantic visions of eternal families in the LDS church. If it WAS inspired, then that means eternal family is not going to be anything like earthly family. If it wasn’t inspired, then that means that we know nothing about the eternal nature of our relationships anyway.

Mormon scriptures present a view of this world that is at the same time wondrous and disturbing. This creation is truly an enigma wrapped in a mystery, and can only be comprehended by revelation from our creator.

It is the most wicked of all God’s creations on one hand (Moses 7:36), and on the other, it is the means to be exalted to the highest heavens (D&C 88:6).

Brigham Young put it this way:

We are inhabitants of a world of sin and sorrow; pain and anguish, every ill that can be heaped upon intelligent beings in a probation we are heirs to. I suppose that God never organized an earth and peopled it that was ever reduced to a lower state of darkness, sin and ignorance than this. I suppose this is one of the lowest kingdoms that ever the Lord Almighty created, and on that account is capable of becoming exalted to be one of the highest kingdoms that has ever had an exaltation in all the eternities. In proportion as it has been reduced so it will be exalted, with that portion of its inhabitants who in their humiliation have cleaved to righteousness and acknowledged God in all things…

In proportion to our fall through sin, so shall we be exalted in the presence of our Father and God, through Jesus Christ and by living the righteousness of his Gospel. All this the people will understand in due time through their faithfulness, and learn to rejoice even in the midst of afflictions. Brigham Young, May 1863, JD 10:175

My individual experience in this creation for over 7 decades as taught me that the Lord God of Heaven revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith more truth than we have room to receive.

Whatever kind of individual affliction has been heaped upon us by our creator for the purpose of our exaltation is something to be prized. Mosiah 3:19

I believe that when Mormons propose that LGBT people will be made straight in the afterlife, that comes from the same place that caused Mormons to propose that righteous black people would be made white in the afterlife. Mormons see something amiss in the current social milieu, recognize that this thing doesn’t fit perfectly with their free will theology, and so they put in some divine grace: God will make the seemingly impossible into the fully realized in the afterlife.

Of course, for both, you have to start that the trait in question is some sort of defect, when it could be that what is amiss is our understanding as a society, culture, religion, etc.,

Right you are, Andrew and those comments reminded me the forgettable observations from Spencer Kimball from General Conference of October, 1960 when he said, “The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. ”

There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.”

If you want to talk about defective, that talk is a good place to start.

Andrew S: “I believe that when Mormons propose that LGBT people will be made straight in the afterlife, that comes from the same place that caused Mormons to propose that righteous black people would be made white in the afterlife.”

That may well be for some Mormons, but LDS issues with homosexuality cannot be so easily dismissed. Those who continually pull out the race card are simply ignoring the very real difficulties the homosexual problem poses for LDS theology. Many Mormons are sincerely trying to incorporate homosexuality in an honest and tolerant way, while maintaining belief in their core doctrines. However this presents almost insurmountable difficulties, difficulties which are unappreciated by those who dismiss their efforts as equivalent to racism.

Learning to ignore a few racist scriptures in the Book of Mormon is one thing. But trying to ignore or change an entire theology founded upon the idea of eternal procreation is something entirely different. Race is not equivalent to homosexuality. Black people can procreate, and can do so in the natural way. Homosexuals can only procreate through IVF and adoption. If homosexuality is eternal, holy, and ultimately procreative, that necessitates God redesigning the human form to incorporate male pregnancy, an effort that would seem laughable, even for most homosexuals.

#31:
“The Christian Baker in Oregon is being fined $130,000 for not wanting to participate in gay marriage activity.”

Actually, that’s not accurate. First of all, it’s not a fine. It’s an award of civil damages, as compensation for tortious actions on the bakers’ part. Second, it’s not $130,000. It’s $135,000. Third, it’s not in response to the bakers’ refusal to bake a cake, even though that discriminatory action gave rise to the problem.

Here’s the reality. The lesbian couple filed their discrimination complaint with the state, through an online submission portal. They were unaware, when they did so, that their personal address and other contact information would be forwarded to the bakers. Upon receiving notice of the complaint, the bakers went to Facebook as a means of publicizing how “persecuted” they were, and included the lesbian couple’s names and contact information. This led to a steady stream of death threats against the couple. It nearly caused them to lose their foster children, because state officials feared that the couple would not be capable of keeping the children safe from the continual threats being sent toward them. Therefore, the court awarded the couple civil damages for intentional infliction of emotional suffering.

Jared, the article you link in #76 is seriously problematic. The article suggests that homosexuality is the result of a mismatch between brain and body gender, i.e a “female brain in a male body” or a “male brain in a female body.” The article further suggests that the “treatment” for such a condition is gender reassignment surgery, to bring the body’s gender in alignment with the brain’s gender.

That’s not an accurate representation of sexual orientation. Ironically, it’s a rather accurate representation of gender identity dysphoria. The medical profession now understands that the internal perception of gender is quite stable, and cannot be changed in any meaningful way through psychotherapy. Accordingly, medical treatment to bring the body in line with the internally perceived gender (i.e. hormones and/or surgery) is now accepted as a medically necessary treatment for the condition of gender identity dysphoria.

None of this, however, has anything to do with sexual orientation. I know several gay trans men, for example. These are individuals who were designated as “female” at birth, due to the appearance of their external genitals. Each of them had a persistent internal perception that they were NOT female, but rather male, causing them significant distress over the female-like presentation of their bodies. Each of them underwent medical transition in the form of hormones and/or surgical interventions. Each of them is sexually, emotionally, and romantically attracted to men. Ergo, they are gay men. These men stand completely at odds with what this author attempts to describe.

Jared, I’m married to one of those medical professionals who gets to sit down with other medical professionals and figure out how to advise parents when their baby’s biology (chromosomes and/or physiology) doesn’t fit neatly into an “XX” or “XY” category. This issue is not nearly as simplistic as that article suggests. What I’m talking about doesn’t even have anything to do with psychology or sexual orientation. The docs have no way of predicting those beyond a very simplistic guess based on what hormones the brain was bathed with in utero. Ideally, they’d prefer to wait and see how the kid thinks when they grow up, but it’s hard for a parent to accept the idea that it’s not clear whether their kid is going to think she’s a girl or he’s a boy. Physiologically, they tend to err on correcting biology towards guy equipment, since it’s much easier to take away body parts later on than to put them back on. There are tons of variables at play, and likely even more that docs haven’t figured yet.

The article also completely ignores bisexuals. Someone might think they have an interesting theory, but this is far from mainstream thinking in the medical community.

The reason I provided the link to the birth defect article is to point out that medical experts are doing what they can to determine why a very small percentage of the worlds population have abnormal sexual desires. One short news article can not be taken as the finial word on the subject.

I am not attempting to convey the idea I know anything medical about this very complicated issue.

I am, however astonished that America, the supposed leader of Christian causes has changed the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals.

Now that we have, it is a indication of just how far our country as fallen from our Christian heritage. That doesn’t bode well for the future.

For those who accept the Book of Mormon, the primary issue isn’t SSA, the real issue is the judgments of God. America, the Gentile nation, is not any piece of real estate. It is a chosen country, occupied by a chosen people.

9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.
10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.
Ether 2:9-10

As I wrote in #31, I am 100% for gay unions, but gay marriage is the wrong path for a Christian nation.

As I said in #31, I think he make a poor choice denying to bake a cake for a gay wedding. But the state imposing a fine or judgment for his choice is not right either. Does he have religious rights or not? That is the question the courts and the 2016 elections will be focusing on.

That’s just it, Jared—there was no fine. There was a civil award for damages. That award was not for failing to bake a cake, but rather for purposely subjecting the couple to public torment, death threats, etc. The bakers published the couple’s personal address, etc., repeatedly, in order to subject them to such things. Hardly “Christian” behavior at all.

“My guess is Christian’s will find the path difficult.”

I doubt that very much.

(1) Jesus was continually upsetting the Pharisees and Sadducees by brazenly dining with “publicans and sinners.” Why on earth would any Christian baker reasonably assume that Jesus would take issue with them baking a wedding cake for alleged “sinners?”

(2) When faced with the question of obeying the civil law by paying a tax to Caesar—something rabidly opposed by the Pharisees and Sadducees—Jesus merely said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Why would any Christian court clerk reasonably assume that Jesus would take issue with them following their civil legal duties by issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple, in accordance with the Constitution as authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court?

Thanks for details about the OR bakers’ case. I had no idea what the complaining couple were subjected to and no idea that that was the basis of the award.

I’d like to suppose that it wasn’t the bakers’ intention to make the couple a target of that kind of vitriol but the woods are full of the “righteous” who think they’re entitled to inflict and enforce their personal point of view.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses on the Daily Universe. Thank you for your courage on this issue.

Another commenter here wrote about being insensitive on this issue in the past and feeling sorrow for that. I’m in a similar situation. Twenty years ago I may have been one of the folks debating with you. I take comfort in the fact that if a stubborn mind like mine is malleable, surely others can change as well.

Again, thank you for the time and effort you took to address the Daily Universe’s questions.

Ken: again, no one is forcing you to believe contrary to your chosen beliefs. No one. Other viewpoints are offered, not as dissent, but as further information from those who’ve had different experiences than you or the 100% heterosexual Q15. All revelation, even to our beloved leaders comes through our individual filters, unless the Savior appears before the prophet in person to specifically express His will beyond any human filter.

You claim liberals keep hammering their views on others. Oftentimes, this is because those who are traditional conservatives believe they already have things figured out, including by revelation through their filters. You know that the Q15 frequently and vehemently disagree, and robustly argue amongst themselves over things pertaining to the church—this according to several in that group who have publicly declared this. Thus, their views, after prayer, study, pondering, fasting, and temple service still vary—how can this be? If they are all in tune, how can they have different inspiration and revelation?

During the 50’s and 60’s the Q15 were of varying opinions and beliefs regarding priesthood and black men. They could not come to 100% terms on the same page for decades. Liberals decried the ban and the inherent racism it involved. They were called terrible things and accused of pressing their viewpoint when they should follow the prophet and should not speak aloud any word of personal opinion—because it was a given that they were wrong and definitely not guided by the Spirit. They were called rebellious, unrighteous, weak in the faith, under the influence of the adversary, troublemakers, and unworthy. Traditional members felt harassed in some cases because the truths these liberals expressed made them feel uncomfortable. We look back now and can’t imagine how blacks weren’t given the priesthood all along as Joseph did, but Brigham stopped.

Now here we are with the last two major bastions of discriminated against segments of society—women and LGBTs—-trying to further the progress of helping societies recognize that no matter how happy we are with the way things have been, they cause harm. Real, debilitating, devastating harm.

Liberals have always been the forerunners and “last-runners” of progress and change. Women aren’t sold as much as they used to be because of liberals. They vote because of liberals. They have educations because of liberals. They have better pay because of the efforts of liberals fighting against hardened hearts and minds who thought the roles and needs of women was already figured out and complete.

As a heterosexual I thought I had homosexuality all figured out and had it compartmentalized in my mind just accordingly. I sincerely believed that compartment was full and complete. Until I met and came to know, then love gay people. What they taught me changed me forever and I can never go back to the neat little compartment in my brain ever again. They have expanded my understanding, imparted treasures of wisdom, opened my blinded eyes and deaf ears. I can never repay these dear loved ones for helping me grow and helping me become more Christlike. They have taught me a great deal about love beyond my own heartfelt, but limited preferences.

I’ve swallowed crow—much like Elder McKonkie did right after the 1978 priesthood ban was lifted from black men when he publicly stated that we were to forget anything he or any other church leader had said or previously taught about the matter–that “we were wrong.”

I laid down pride I didn’t know I was cocooned in. I’ve had to apologize and seek forgiveness for slurs said and jokes laughed at that denigrated this minority among us.

So I say God bless the liberals who push society to make changes that lift an ill-treated group in society up where it belongs. There is no other way to have no more -ites among us.

We need not grant promiscuity free reign. We can clearly see the sorrows such behavior brings. But morally sound marriages and families are not promiscuous, even when they are same-sex parents. They are committed to fidelity, to parenting, to raising healthy and happy kids who become wonderful adults to contribute to the goodness in the world. We can help them succeed, just as they can help us likewise in raising our families…….

If we will be willing to listen to Christian and other sincere, gay members of our wonderful church. That isn’t harassment….its teaching for those who care to be taught. For those who don’t, they are free to not listen, read, or even seek. They are free to follow their hearts the way they feel is best.

Late to the party BUT….with regards to the birth defect question above a few clarifications must be given. First off, a birth defect is a physical or biochemical abnormality that is present at birth and that may be inherited or the result of environmental influence. Typically, we think of these things as mutations that decrease the chances of survival of the organism by inhibiting/preventing functional performance and/or maturation. AB- blood, for example would NOT be a birth defect as it has no impact on the survival of the organism. It would instead be a variation of acceptable genetic combinations within the species that gives no advantage. Sickle cell is a great example of a genetic variation that can straddle both criteria; It increases chances of survival in malaria ridden areas and decreases chances in high altitudes. Because of this, it is viewed simply as a mutation of the genetic possibilities. In order to figure which category homosexuality falls in, you have to determine if 1)it decreases the chance of survival for the organism, regardless of environment 2) if it has no effect on the survival, regardless of environment or 3) it gives advantage to the organism in some enviroments/harms them in others. I think it’s been proven they can live normal, healthy lives across the globe just as well as a hetero sexual so it would be a varient, not a birth defect.

I appreciate your thoughts, but they confuse some fundamental laws of nature and of God.

“Other viewpoints are offered, not as dissent, but as further information”

It is dissent when the FP/12 issued a letter restating the policy of the church.

“You claim liberals keep hammering their views on others. “

They do and some by radical means I might add: By judicial fiat, intimidation and generally not allowing dissent. For example, a black Judge in Ohio refused to perform a same gender marriage because of his religious belief. The lesbian couple are suing and demanding he be fired in spite of the fact the marriage was turned over to another Judge who performed the ceremony.

“…beliefs regarding priesthood and black men….”

This was a policy decision, not a moral decision. Period.

Not only have certain groups been prohibited from receiving the Priesthood at the time of the Savior, they are CURRENTLY forbidden in certain parts of the world for various policy reasons: Violent neighborhoods, intolerant views of the region or the financial strain it would put on the church given the welfare needs. In like manner, it was not a good idea to force blacks and whites to worship with one another during the Civil War. As soon as the tensioned cooled enough to allow peaceful worship, the Church extended the priesthood to the blacks. No doubt the Apostles discussed the issue amongst themselves in years prior to the decision when the time was right, but finally came to a consensus in 1978. And yes, it was appropriate for Elder McConkie to apologize for saying it would never happen. He was wrong.

In stark contrast, the church has always held the position same sex marriage is a moral issue and is not ordained of God. Believe me, having a child that struggles with this predisposition, I have read and consulted almost everyone I can, including family on both my side and my wife’s side, who are about as high up as you can get in the church without being in the FP/12.

“…of discriminated against segments of society—women and LGBTs—…“

LOL. Women discriminated against? Seriously, they are the keystone of our families and faith. Stop the false charade.

LGBT’s are and should be – traditional marriage should be touted and taught as the plan ordained of God, because it is.

“Liberals have always been the forerunners and “last-runners” of progress and change.”

Yea, unfortunately, they don’t know when to stop. Look at the fruits of liberalism in the US – in Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Detroit, Camden, Washington D.C. and on and on and on. Complete failure due to liberal policies; financial ruin, violent crime on the increase, extreme poverty and a whole host of social ills. The conservative strong holds with conservative policies, on the other hand are financial stability, low in crime and more positive communities overall. Not just the small States like Utah and Idaho, but larger ones like Texas.

Conservative principles work, because they have been tested over time.

Ken says above–“…of discriminated against segments of society—women and LGBTs—…“
“LGBT’s are and should be”

Ken’s beliefs on LGBTs were a little disjointed and I thought readers might miss them, especially since they were far down in his longish post, by which time most have quit reading, so I succinclty rewrote them. So glad you are here to share, Ken. I am sure that your child “who suffers from this disposition” will be so happy to have such an understanding Daddy as he decides for himself how to deal with his sexuality. It appears his only hope for happiness is you don’t really have a gay kid and you are just making it up for purposes of posting here.

Your judgement about me is wrong. We are wrestling our belief that traditional marriage is the only marriage sanctioned by God, with the very real feelings of one of our children. I realize taking that firm stand puts same sex marriage in a secondary position relative to traditional marriage (discriminatory), however that is the way that it is according to God in my view.

I am not saying this would happen in any other family, I am only speaking to what I think would happen in this particular family, who I know very well:

My brother-in-law is against gay marriage. He states his views all the time. I asked him once, “what if one of your kids were gay?” He said, “they would know I still love them, despite my views.” I disagree. In my opinion, if he had a gay child, the child would feel that he hates him/her (or is disappointed or disgusted or [plug in many negative emotions here]), no matter how many times he would tell the child that he loves him/her.

I just don’t understand how anyone could think it is more loving to suggest celibacy and hope for changing from being gay to straight in this life or the next instead of saying, “I hope your dreams come true and you find the man/woman of your dreams!” It is not complicated. It’s simple. LOVE.

Methinks at Fairmormon.org there’s a fair amount of material under same-sex attraction. Though not authoritative insofar as the Church is concerned, I find it reliable.

A wee perspective on the ‘nature versus nuture’ debate that seemingly will go round and round w/o ever attaining authoritative consensus. Suppose INDEED there is at least something to the ‘nature’ position, noting that the Church itself takes no position on what ’causes’ homosexuality. Of course, even discussed ’causes’ does give the impression that being LGBT, choice or not, is some manner of malady, to which ‘they’ vehemently object.

I’ve dealt with in my life what the late Chris Farley called a ‘little bit of a weight problem’, bear claws and all. Certainly one HAS to eat in some manner, else you’d starve to death. So ‘eating’ is most certainly ‘natural’. However, one can eat improperly (i.e., in excess or at least consuming what is euphemistically termed ‘junk food’). For purposes of this comparison I’m leaving out being sedentary and/or not building or maintain sufficient muscle mass to consume enough calories even at rest. So while eating is necessary to live, consumption of ‘mass quantities’, while it works for Beldar and Prymaat Clorhone of Remulak (aka the “Coneheads”), is most definitely detrimental and ought to be avoided. In this life, IF we are to master ourselves in our mortal bodies, we MUST control our (literally) fleshly appetites, else we see the consequences, malnutrition and/or obesity (or also, eating disorders which are well beyond the scope of this thread).

I postulate that likewise, regardless of one’s sexual urges (and I never want to lay out mine on this or any other public forum, thank you very much), a loving Heavenly Father would not give us commandments to observe about our sexuality, that is, to express them ONLY within the bounds of ‘traditional’ heterosexual marriage as He has set forth (which is explicitly covenanted to in the Temple), without ALSO giving each of us (I’m allowing for genuine mental illness as at least a mitigating condition) the means to channel said urges as directed, and forsake any OTHER expression (I Nephi 3:7). To assert that “God made me THAT way” is to blame Him for one’s own issues or refusal to repent. As the late BKP asserted, WHY would God do that? Is He the eternal prankster? If so, believe in Loki, then.

Um … as a trans woman who went from being mostly-straight to now mostly-lesbian, I’m pretty sure that your sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things. ^^;

I’d also like to note that even if someone decided to do the whole “SRS to become straight” thing, which I had never even heard of before being linked to that bizarre article, they would be awfully disappointed. Physically and socially transitioning genders involves medication, time to let it take effect, and a long process of learning the stuff that a person assigned your real gender at birth absorbed while growing up.

Beyond that, you can get the crap kicked out of you if you try to use the restroom for your real gender. You can also get fired, divorced, evicted, thrown out of your home, denied emergency medical care, and beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. ^^;

I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. But I sometimes suspect someone wished it on me, back when I was a conservative Mormon who trolled blogs and messageboards. Telling people their life, love, and lived experiences don’t matter, because God or a book said one thing and if reality won’t conform, then they had darned well better.

Finally, I’m pretty darned sure that anyone thumping a book full of old people’s teachings, and telling others to ignore their hearts and their spiritual feelings and just go with what their leaders say, would have completely missed the boat in the times of Jesus or Joseph Smith.

So, be glad you were born in (or near) The One True Church, and not something similar but completely wrong!

“My brother-in-law is against gay marriage. He states his views all the time. I asked him once, “what if one of your kids were gay?” He said, “they would know I still love them, despite my views.” I disagree. In my opinion, if he had a gay child, the child would feel that he hates him/her (or is disappointed or disgusted or [plug in many negative emotions here]), no matter how many times he would tell the child that he loves him/her.”

Everyone lives in different external circumstances and relationships and everyone processes things in accordance with their own personality but I can tell you my experience. I am the first child in my family and my father always wanted a boy. I was a disappointment.

I’m not sure how I even know that. I don’t remember him ever saying any such thing to me and he was loving and proud of my accomplishments. We ended up having he most natural affinity of personalities, temperments and talents in our family. I adored him and I always felt loved and a little special. But I also always knew I was supposed to be a boy and, tho straight in my gender identity, I’ve never been able to fully embrace my femininity or let go of my inner tomboy. I never had it diagnosed but I believe I’ve always suffered from body dysmorphia.

Maybe your B-i-L’s hypothetical gay child would feel loved, Dexter. I don’t doubt that’s what your B-i-L would want in his heart of hearts. But I suspect there would always be that note of not being “right” and I can tell you it’s a burden even when it’s just the societally accepted difference between being a boy or a girl. Can’t even imagine what it would feel like if it were the more contentious difference between being gay and straight. That has to be a nightmare and I can empathize with the legions of young gay Mormons who have committed or attempted suicides.

Thanks for sharing, Alice. I think it’s interesting that you don’t know how you “know” you were a disappointment, but you know. This supports what I was trying to say, that kids KNOW what parents really think, even if they don’t overtly say it.

I definitely agree that my brother-in-law’s child could feel loved, and that my brother-in-law would want that in his heart of hearts. And I hope that is what would happen. But I fear no matter how many times he said “I love you”, they would feel like a huge disappointment to him, if not something worse.

And allow me to further clarify, I think my brother-in-law is a great guy, and a great dad. He is a very kind person.

But I don’t think he realizes how hurtful and destructive his views could be if he has a gay child. I don’t think some people realize that supporting the church’s stance on gay marriage could cut loved ones very deeply.

Your brother-in-law and I understand that obedience to Gods commandments brings happiness. It has for me and I believe is the course for true happiness for anyone. On this issue, we will have to agree to disagree.

“I think it’s interesting that you don’t know how you “know” you were a disappointment, but you know. This supports what I was trying to say, that kids KNOW what parents really think, even if they don’t overtly say it.” Sad to say, but alice’s comments really hit me. I know exactly how you feel, and I suspect many do whose parents were of a certain generation in which male children were preferred to carry on the name.

Whether or not a gay/lesbian child who ‘comes out’ to their parents FEEL loved may depend upon THEIR own perspective and expectations as well as the parent’s actions and attitudes. I’m NOT saying that being selfish and/or manipulative is part and parcel of being LGBT, mine own limited experience being that there’s no measureable statistics that would justify labeling them that way or explanation of behavior that could be correlated to sexual orientation. However, some may interpret apprehension or disappointment as ‘proof’ of lack of love, when it’s the degree of love that gives the ‘grieving’ parent emotional ‘skin in the game’. Also, at times there are unrealistic expectations, such as “if when we visit, if you don’t let myself and my partner (or now ‘spouse’) sleep in the same bed, then you don’t love me!”. It’s not as if heterosexual adult children aren’t guilty of that type of manipulation, as the case records of any law enforcement agency with an elder abuse unit will unfortunately attest. It isn’t easy to define a set of heuristics that would readily define when parents ‘love’ their gay/lesbian offspring and when they don’t. Hurling emotionally-charged accusations either way doesn’t help either.

Alice, though I can’t directly relate (as I’m child #2) to your situation, and with my birth my parents had both a daughter and a son (they’d get three more daughters in time), it kinda ‘stinks’ that you had to deal with any feelings of inferiority or rejection by your Daddy over something which wasn’t your ‘say’. I can only say that I love BOTH my sons and daughters, but I wouldn’t feel left out if it’d gone to either extreme. Disney kinda explored this in 1954, putting out a ‘sequel’ to the “Mighty Casey of the Mudville Nine” story they’d bundled in “Make Mine Music” back in ’46. INTERESTING to note there was a “Mrs. Casey” when he’d first struck out in light of the first storyline.

A formerly stalwart member of my wife’s ward asked my wife after the meeting regarding the letter, “How do you keep coming to church after all these years?” Our son came out 8 years ago. It was interesting to my wife because it was the first crack in this lady’s armor since her son came out a year ago. She has been putting on a courageous face while apparently struggling internally.

The SSM controversy had made such an us vs them scenario in the church, county and families. Bummer.

It is more agonizing than you can imagine – to reconcile your belief system with a child that is in every way awesome that struggles with sexual identity – accomplished, kind, considerate and intelligent. I really appreciate your comments more than you realize, even though I don’t come across that way sometimes. I wouldn’t come to this site I were getting the reconciliation I were seeking with church leaders. Again, I have consulted with those about as high up in the church as you can go without reaching the top.

You love this child God has given you and they really struggle with what path they are going to take and will they be happy taking that path. In the end, I will love and support them. At this point anyway, I will continue to support the path of revelation I have trusted my entire existence, a path that points to traditional marriage as the one God has ordained.

I appreciate your honesty, and I think it is wonderful that you have sought counsel on this matter from so many people. I also think it is commendable that you are willing to look a little bit outside the box, so to speak, by coming to this website if you don’t feel you are getting everything you need from channels you have already tried. I sympathize with your situation and I know we have butted heads on issues, but I truly hope you and your child can find or maintain happiness on this issue.

I used to be a super duper TBM. I was against gay marriage. I followed the prophets. If someone asked me, what if the church isn’t true, I couldn’t even honestly consider that as a possibility. I was SO SURE it was true.

Now, I know we are just two people who happen to comment on the same website, but let me just share what I would say to my best friend if he had a child who was gay and was tying to reconcile what to do, and you can obviously take it or leave it.

1) Conflicting parent/child desires. Let’s say a father desperately wanted his son to be a doctor. But his son desperately wanted to be in theater. The father dreamed of his son studying science, going to med school, and saving people’s lives through his work. The son has no interest in that, but loved music and dance. The son would readily admit that without the nurturing and caring and generosity of his parents, he wouldn’t be alive, he wouldn’t have the opportunity to do anything, medicine or dance. Let’s also add this fact: the boy is super intelligent, an absolute genius when it comes to science, and he’s a terrible dancer. Just awful. Still, isn’t the loving thing eventually to let the child be what he wants to be? Isn’t it the loving thing for the father to bite his tongue and support the son’s decision if that’s where the SON thinks he will find happiness? At some point, no matter what your views might be, I think the child would be better off making his/her own decisions, instead of being pressured to do what the parent thinks is best. Even if the father is sure the son would be happier as a doctor, and even if the father is right, isn’t the loving thing to let go and let the child choose for himself?

2) No offense, and like I said above, I know this is difficult, but what if the church is wrong on this issue? There are lot of active temple going Mormons who believe polygamy was not ordained of god. Many temple going Mormons believe that the priesthood ban for blacks was a mistake. Many temple going Mormons believe the church is wrong about gay marriage. What if the church okays sealings of gays in 10 or 20 years? Will you have wished you encouraged your child to find love instead of avoid it? I think there is enough uncertainty on whether God really is against gay marriage, the nature of the afterlife, and the track record of prophets that it would not be wrong to encourage a gay or straight child to seek the man/woman of their dreams and live happily ever after.

I would rather encourage my son to find love and be wrong and explain to God that I did the most loving thing I could based on the circumstances, than encourage my son to be celibate and if I’m wrong I would know my son missed out on love and romance his whole life because of me.

In addition, if you want to get advice from outside the normal channels, perhaps you should seek a therapist’s (not employed by the church) professional scientific/psychological opinion on what is best for the child.

Sorry this is so long, and I share this with love and respect to a friend.

#116 – Glad that you shared this anecdote about the dear sister suffering on account of learning of her son being gay. I would that EVERY word the Savior gave was comforting but at times, methinks he took the “Nick Lowe” route (Ya gotta be ‘cruel’ to be ‘kind’). In Luke 12:51, he mentioned that He would ‘bring’ division, yet I see no evidence that He soft-pedaled His message.

The fault is NOT with the message, but at times the ‘messengers’, for lack of a better term, really SUCK at delivering it! There, I said it. No one, least of all where beloved family members are concerned, WANTS to hear that there’s something ‘wrong’ with them, or that they’re ‘doomed’, or other bad news. So what DO you do? I wish I knew and this is where I definitely rely on the whispering of the Spirit, b/c it’s one thing to pontificate and blog in forums like this, it’s another to deal with the fellow souls that are hurting, searching, and at times just want some assurance (Galatians 6:2). We ARE supposed to BEAR each other burdens, after all, the Savior took all of OURS on willingly even though He admitted reluctance and trepidation (D&C 19:16-19).